TFT snippet #5

I'm wondering if much of this discussion doesn't belong in the free forums rather than here.

But that being said, I can understand both PeterZ's pov and Dilandu's.

But I will point out that both capitalism and socialism carry within themselves the seeds of their own destruction especially if the most damaging aspects of either are left unchecked.

We will name those seeds human nature which at its core is self seeking.

Don

-

n7axw wrote:I'm wondering if much of this discussion doesn't belong in the free forums rather than here.

But that being said, I can understand both PeterZ's pov and Dilandu's.

But I will point out that both capitalism and socialism carry within themselves the seeds of their own destruction especially if the most damaging aspects of either are left unchecked.

We will name those seeds human nature which at its core is self seeking.

Don



-

I think I will second Don's suggestion about where the more contentious aspects of the conversation belong. I think it's a worthwhile conversation, you understand, but I'm not sure how deep into the weeds the bulk of the readership wants to get.

Loren Pechtel wrote:

PeterZ wrote:A quibble. Capitalism controlled by Kleptocratic Oligarchs will be comparable to socialism. The form of ownership is far less important than voluntary exchange and free markets. I will concede that socialism drastically limits just how free a market can be as well as limiting the areas where there can be voluntary exchange compared to full and broad private ownership. So while socialism inherently limits free markets and voluntary exchange more so than capitalism, who owns the capital is less port ant than how the capital is used.

1) Kleptocratic oligarchs do not produce what I would call capitalism. The essence of capitalism is competition.

2) You're missing the core point of what I was saying--under capitalism those who control the wealth will be more skilled at making/preserving wealth than those who control it under socialism. How can this not result in more wealth in the long run?

I don't miss your core point. MY point was that capitalism at its core is private ownership of wealth. Private ownership by itself does not secure a more efficient economy. Capitalism does not enshrine competition, free markets and voluntary exchange do. Adam Smith's capitalism requires laws preventing the wealthy from limiting information availability and voluntary exchange for people to make decisions and then act on them so that the "invisible hand" he alludes to can work its corrective actions.

Voluntary exchange and free markets do more to make economies efficient than simply having private parties owning wealth. Without them, the truly skilled private owners of wealth will adopt barriers to entry to secure their continued creation of their own wealth. Just look at the robber barrons of the late 19th century USA or the early English industrialists. They used their wealth to secure their positions and markets.

So capitalism defined as private ownership of property accompanied by free markets and voluntary exchange will do as you assert. Those factors are not the sine qua non of capitalism. They are the sine qua non of efficient economic systems and they are incompatible with socialism. Capitalsim however, do not require these factors.

So the Harchonese on Howard will practice capitalism, but will they encourage free markets and voluntary exchange? The idea that they even tacitly condone serfdoms suggests there is a heavy dose compulsion in their economics. Does this represent less compulsion than practiced anywhere else on Haven? Likely they are better than almost all the other nations besides Siddermark and maybe Dohlar by now. That doesn't mean they can compete with Charis's economic efficiency. To compete, they will have to become more driven by voluntary exchange and free markets.

runsforcelery wrote:

n7axw wrote:I'm wondering if much of this discussion doesn't belong in the free forums rather than here.

But that being said, I can understand both PeterZ's pov and Dilandu's.

But I will point out that both capitalism and socialism carry within themselves the seeds of their own destruction especially if the most damaging aspects of either are left unchecked.

We will name those seeds human nature which at its core is self seeking.

Don



-

I think I will second Don's suggestion about where the more contentious aspects of the conversation belong. I think it's a worthwhile conversation, you understand, but I'm not sure how deep into the weeds the bulk of the readership wants to get.

In my defense, I was not interested in talking about current socialism and capitalsim, but about elements of economic activity. I merely responded to some posts that seemed to ascribe views to me that I never asserted in my posts.

n7axw wrote:I'm wondering if much of this discussion doesn't belong in the free forums rather than here.

Don

-

What, move something to the appropriate forum due to topic drift? What a novel concept.